Regulatory and Biosafety Issues in Relation to Transgenic Animals in Food and Agriculture, Feeds Containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and Veterinary Biologics

  • H.P.S. Kochhar
  • G.A. Gifford
  • S. Kahn

Abstract

Development of an effective regulatory system for genetically engineered animals and their products has been the subject of increasing discussion among researchers, industry and policy developers, as well as the public. Since transgenesis and cloning are relatively new scientific techniques, transgenic animals are new organisms for which there is limited information. The issues associated with the regulation and biosafety of transgenic animals pertain to environmental impact, human food safety, animal health and welfare, trade and ethics. To regulate this new and powerful technology predicated on limited background information is a challenge not only for the regulators, but also for the developers of such animals, who strive to prove that the animals are safe and merit bio-equivalency to their conventional counterparts. In principle, an effective regulatory sieve should permit safe products while forming a formidable barrier for those assessed of posing an unacceptable risk.

Adoption of transgenic technology for use in agriculture will depend upon various factors that range from perceived benefits for humans and animals, to safe propagation, animal welfare considerations and integrity of species, as well as effects on bio-diversity. A regulatory framework designed to address the concerns connected with the environmental release of transgenic animals needs to also take into account the ability of genetically modified animals to survive and compete with conventional populations. Regulatory initiatives for biotechnology-derived animals and their products should ensure high standards for human and animal health; a sound scientific basis for evaluation; transparency and public involvement; and maintenance of genetic diversity.

Feeds obtained by use of biotechnology have to be evaluated for animal and human safety by using parameters that define their molecular characterization, nutritional qualities and toxicological aspects, while veterinary biologics derived from biotechnology must be shown to be pure, potent, safe and effective when used according to label recommendations.

The Canadian regulatory system relies on the “precautionary principle” in its approach to regulate the “product” instead of the “process”. The regulatory framework captures transgenic animals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Food from transgenic animals is assessed for safety by Health Canada under its Novel Foods Regulations of the Food and Drugs Act. Feed containing any genetically modified organism is considered Novel Feed under the Feeds Act and Regulations. The regulation of veterinary biologics, in an effort to prevent and diagnose infectious diseases of animals, relies on effective science-based regulatory controls under the Health of Animals Act and Regulations. The Canadian system of regulation for feeds, veterinary biologics and transgenic animals could be useful to developing countries in the process of establishing an effective framework for new regulations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berkowitz, D.B. 1993. The food safety of transgenic animals: implications from traditional breeding. Journal of Animal Science, 7: 43–46.Google Scholar
  2. CCAC [Canadian Council on Animal Care]. 1997. CCAC guidelines on transgenic animals. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, Ontario. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/englishgdlines/transgen/transge1.htm#download.Google Scholar
  3. CFIA [Canadian Food Inspection Agency]. 1998. Session report on “Consultation on regulating livestock animal and fish derived from biotechnology”. Available at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/tech/aniconsulte.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  4. CFIA. 2003a. Canadian Food Inspection Agency-Feeds section. Available at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/feebete.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  5. CFIA. 2003b. Canadian Food Inspection Agency-Veterinary Biologics section. Available at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/vetbio/vbpbve.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  6. EC/HC [Environment Canada/Health Canada]. 2001. Guidelines for the notification and testing of New Substance organisms, pursuant to “The New Substances Notification Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”. Published by Environment Canada and Health Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, B.R. 1999. The prospects for international regulatory interventions in embryo transfer and reproductive technologies in the next century. Theriogenology, 51: 71–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill, J.R., Edwards, J.F., Sawyer, N., Blackwell, C. & Cibelli, J.B. 2001. Placental anomalies in a viable cloned calf. Cloning, 3: 83–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howard, T.H., Homan, E.J. & Bremel, R.D. 2001. Transgenic livestock: Regulation and science in a changing environment. Journal of Animal Science, 79(Suppl.): 1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Kang, Y.K., Park, J.S., Koo, D.B., Choi, Y.H., Kim, S.U., Lee, K.K. & Han, Y.M. 2002. Limited demethylation leaves mosaic-type methylation states in cloned bovine preimplantation embryos. EMBO Journal, 21: 1092–1100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kappeli, O. & Auberson, L. 1997. The science and intricacy of environmental safety evaluations. Trends in Biotechnology, 15: 342–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kapuscinski, A.R., Goodman, R.M., Hann, S.D., Jacobs, L.R., Pullins, E.E., Johnson, C.S., Kinsey, J.D., Krall, R.L., La Vina, A.G., Mellon, M.G. & Ruttan, V.W. 2003. Making ’safety first’ a reality for biotechnology products. Nature Biotechnology, 21: 599–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuroiwa, Y., Kasinathan, P., Choi, Y.J., Naeem, R., Tomizuka, K., Sullivan, E.J., Knott, J.G., Duteau, A., Goldsby, R.A., Osborne, B.A., Ishida, I. & Robl, J.M. 2002. Cloned transchromosomic calves producing human immunoglobulin. Nature Biotechnology, 20: 889–894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maredia, M.K. 1998. The economics of biosafety: implications for biotechnology in developing countries. Biosafety, 3: 1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Nuffield. 1999. Nuffield Council on Bioethics in Genetically Modified Crops: The ethical and social issues. The Nuffield Foundation, London.Google Scholar
  16. Palmiter R.D., Brinster, R.L., Hammer, R.E., Trumbauer, M.E., Rosenfeld, M.G., Birnberg, N.C. & Evans, R.M. 1982. Dramatic growth of mice that develop with eggs microinjected with matalotheonein-growth hormone fusion genes. Nature, 300: 611–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perry, A.C.F., Wakayama, T., Kishikawa, H., Kasai, T., Okade, M., Toyoda, Y. & Yanagimachi, R. 1999. Mammalian transgenesis by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Science, 284: 1180–1183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phelps, C.J., Koike, C., Vaught, T.D., Boone, J., Wells, K.D., Chen, S.H., Ball, S., Specht, S.M., Polejaeva, I.A., Monahan, J.A., Jobst, P.M., Sharma, S.B., Lamborn, A.E., Garst, A.S., Moore, M., Demetris, A.J., Rudert, W.A., Bottino, R., Bertera, S., Trucco, M., Starzl, T.E., Dai, Y. & Ayares, D.L. 2003. Production of alpha 1,3 galactosyltransferase-deficient pigs. Science, 299: 411–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pursel, V.G. & Rexroad C.E. Jr. 1993. Recent progress in the transgenic modification of swine and sheep. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 36: 251–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robl, J.M. 1999. New life for sperm mediated transgenesis? Nature Biotechnology, 17: 636–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schnieke, A.E., Kind, A.J., Ritchie, W.A., Mycock, K., Scott, A.R., Ritchie, M., Wilmut, I., Colman, A. & Campbell, K.H. 1997. Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science, 278: 2130–2133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scientists’ Working Group on Biosafety. 1998. Manual for assessing ecological and human health effects of genetically engineered organisms. Edmonds, WA: Edmonds Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Sethi, M.S., Gifford, G.A. & Samagh, B.S. 1997. Canadian regulatory requirements for recombinant fish vaccines. Developments in Biological Standardization, 90: 347–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tuboly, T., Yu, W., Bailey, A., Degrandis, S., Du, S., Erickson, L. & Nagy, E. 2000. Immunogenicity of porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus spike protein expressed in plants. Vaccine, 18(19): 2023–2028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilmut, I. & Clark, A.J. 1991. Basic techniques for transgenesis. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 43: 265–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J. & Campbell, K.H. 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385: 810–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young, L.E., Sinclair, K.D. & Wilmut, I. 1998. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Reviews of Reproduction, 3: 155–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IAEA 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.P.S. Kochhar
    • 1
  • G.A. Gifford
    • 1
  • S. Kahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Health and Production Division, Animal Products DirectorateCanadian Food Inspection AgencyOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations